A&H

Celtic v Ross County

The Referee Store
Penalty, yes. Defenders reaction, or lack of protest, gives the game away.
Perhaps a bit more debate on the DOGSO but I feel the ref was correct. Attacker didn't have full control of the ball, it's direction was away from goal and there was enough defensive protection of the goal to say it wasn't 'obvious'. GK was reckless in his challenge and it merited a caution.
 
Yes for the penalty.

DOGSO and red card for me. If the foul didn't happen the player would have remained in control of the ball. The covering defenders wouldn't of got back and he would of had a pretty open goal to hit into.
 
Penalty? - Definitely, rarely seen such little protest from an offending player/team.

DOGSO? - When I saw this for the first time, at real speed, I thought that the attacking player (and the ball) were heading well into the corner and that, had he not been fouled, then the angle would have been too tight for me to consider that he had an obvious goal scoring opportunity. From the slow motion replay the angle doesn't seem as tight as I first thought and perhaps the attacking player could have scored.
 
OIREF! said:
Penalty? - Definitely, rarely seen such little protest from an offending player/team.

DOGSO? - When I saw this for the first time, at real speed, I thought that the attacking player (and the ball) were heading well into the corner and that, had he not been fouled, then the angle would have been too tight for me to consider that he had an obvious goal scoring opportunity. From the slow motion replay the angle doesn't seem as tight as I first thought and perhaps the attacking player could have scored.
Click to expand...
A ref doesn't have the luxury of slo mo replays.
 
A player running onto a rolling ball shooting into an empty net, the angle would've to pretty damn acute before it's not obvious. A Sunday league player would be disappointed to miss from that angle.
 
If you delete the foul from the incident. He would of maintained possession of the ball then had the opportunity to cut in and tap the ball into an empty net.
 
Jacko said:
If you delete the foul from the incident. He would of maintained possession of the ball then had the opportunity to cut in and tap the ball into an empty net.
Click to expand...
If you delete the foul from the incident? Then where would the GK be? In a position to save the shot, perhaps. Or if there was no foul, what about a caution for simulation?
:D
 
David Sutton said:
If you delete the foul from the incident? Then where would the GK be? In a position to save the shot, perhaps. Or if there was no foul, what about a caution for simulation?
:D
Click to expand...

If he wasn't fouled and the keeper missed him, he would of stayed in possession of the ball and had a shot into an empty net.

Spinning this back to you. If the keeper was on his line and that were a defender who made that challenge with the keeper on his line it would still be DOGSO challenge. The keeper potentially being on his line is irrelevant. It's the opportunity to score and having a shot at goal which has been taken away.
 
Jacko said:
If he wasn't fouled and the keeper missed him, he would of stayed in possession of the ball and had a shot into an empty net.

Spinning this back to you. If the keeper was on his line and that were a defender who made that challenge with the keeper on his line it would still be DOGSO challenge. The keeper potentially being on his line is irrelevant. It's the opportunity to score and having a shot at goal which has been taken away.
Click to expand...
Okay, I was having a bit of fun with you but it's a serious question therefore, I'll answer seriously.

I don't believe it would be DOGSO even if it was defender. As I said before, I view the attacker as moving away from the goal and not in full control of the ball and I'd see it similarly with a defender making a challenge rather than a GK. I've seen many a penalty kick/free kick awarded for foul tackles in that "corner of the PA" region and rarely do I see a red card and when I do, it is usually because the attacker is heading straight for goal. Perhaps my education and perception is wrong, or I lack experience, but that's how I saw the incident on first impression. (In fact it hasn't changed any on follow up viewing).

I did say it was debatable and there's always two sides to a debate.
 
I froze the video where I think the Ross County player would next touch the ball ...
  • The covering defenders would be a few yards further back than where they are in the screenshot
  • The angle is such to make the goal effectively maybe 5-6 yards wide
  • Either directly with a first touch or even with 2-3 touches and then just having a defender between him and the goal - it appears to be an obvious opportunity
upload_2015-8-4_16-11-35.png
 
Yeah, and that's with him falling over, he would of onto it before the box more than likely. Either way, an easy shot for anyone with an open goal, running with it at his feet, giving the defenders no chance.
 
In my opinion, this can't be classed as a DOGSO, despite all comments about the players ability to score from that angle. Under law 12, S5 is "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick". On this example, the final touch of the player before the foul, makes it certainly not a DOGSO, purely because the direction of the ball, is going closer to the corner flag than it is to the goal. It is irrelevant what the player can do from certain angles, we have to make a decision based on the law definition of an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not what we think the player may be able to do.
 
lscott66 said:
In my opinion, this can't be classed as a DOGSO, despite all comments about the players ability to score from that angle. Under law 12, S5 is "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick". On this example, the final touch of the player before the foul, makes it certainly not a DOGSO, purely because the direction of the ball, is going closer to the corner flag than it is to the goal. It is irrelevant what the player can do from certain angles, we have to make a decision based on the law definition of an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not what we think the player may be able to do.
Click to expand...

I don't think the LOTG and the phrase "moving towards goal" are to be interpreted with geometric precision. In this case the play is clearly towards the Celtic goal regardless of the specific direction or angle in which the player is running or the ball is moving. The debate is whether the player would have an obvious goal scoring opportunity from the position he would have found himself in had he not been fouled.
 
But according to the laws of the game, one of the factors to consider when deciding whether the player would have had an obvious goal scoring opportunity, is the direction of play, and as mentioned above, the fact that this player is not moving directly towards the player's goal, means that the law doesn't deem this to be an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Maybe I am reading and interpreting the law too literally, but if the law wanted to be more vague, and wanted situations like this to be a red card, it could state "moving towards the players goal line", but it doesn't, it specifically states moving towards the goal, not to the side of the goal, or towards the corner flag.
 
For me the caution is the correct decision for precisely the reason @lscott66 mentions. I have no doubt that the opportunity to score is there and that you would expect a player of this skill level to score but the criteria on moving towards goal isn't clearly met given the distance from goal, outside the penalty area and wide, therefore the opportunity isn't Obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top